Parshat Bereshit
29 Tishrei 5764
October 25, 2003

Daf Yomi: Menachos 19

Guest Author:
Rabbi Moshe Greebel

Associate Member, YICR

 

Never Inconvenience Another
The Ga'on Rav Yisroel Salanter z"l was once invited to dine at the Lail Shabbos (Friday night) meal of one of his married talmidim. Rav Yisroel however, replied that it was his manner to first know how a particular household conducted itself, before he would consider dining there- and thusly, declined the invitation of the talmid.

Nevertheless, the Talmid was resolved to have Rav Yisroel as his guest, and replied, "But, my household is run with every Hiddur Halacha (beautification of Mitzvos) imaginable. Meat is only purchased from a particular butcher, who is publicly known to be a Yerai Shamayim (someone with fear of Heaven) and a talmid Chacham. The meat is unquestionably proper, the lungs are smooth and without Sirchos (blebs- what we call Glatt today). All the food is prepared by a G-d fearing and very modest woman- the daughter and widow of renowned Talmidei Chachamim. Additionally, my wife supervises every aspect of the meal's preparation with careful attention. As well, the meal is conducted with great honor and dignity. Between courses, Divrei Torah are discussed- and at a certain point in the meal, Shulchan Aruch (formal Halacha) is studied. Moreover, many Zemiros are sung, and the seudah stretches late into the night."

Having heard this elaborate description of the talmid's household, Rav Yisroel had very little alternative but to accept the invitation. Nevertheless, Rav Yisroel replied, "I will be honored to be your guest- but only if you grant me one consideration. The meal will last no longer than two hours!"
Not having much choice in the matter, the talmid reluctantly accepted the condition of the Ga'on. That Friday night, the company rushed through the Seudah- one course immediately following the next without interruption. Before long, an hour or more had elapsed, and it was soon time for Mayim Acharonim (washing the fingers prior to Birkas HaMazon).

Just before reciting Birkas HaMazon, the talmid turned to his guest and asked, "Tell me please Rebbe, what flaw did you find at my table, to limit me so?"

Rav Yisroel however, did not respond to his host. Rather, he summoned the widow from the kitchen to the dining room, and said to her, "Madame, please forgive me for being the cause of you having to serve one course rapidly after the other. It was certainly not easy for you to have rushed so."

�May every Beracha be bestowed upon you, honorable Rabbi!" replied the widow. "If only you were our guest every Friday night! You see, my employer is accustomed to stretching the Friday night seudah into the late hours of the evening. At times, after staying up so late to clean up, I can hardly move the next day. You have my thanks, Rabbi, for allowing me to go home and to sleep early this evening."

Now, Rav Yisroel turned to his talmid, and said, "From the response of this unfortunate woman, you have the answer to your question. Indeed, your Minhagim (customs) are beautiful, but only so long as they inconvenience no one else."

In this week's Sidra, the Torah (Beraishis 2:22) states, "And HaShem built up the rib that he took from the man, into a woman; and He brought her to the man." And so, they were married.

When the Chasam Sofer was a mere eight years old, he was once asked, "The Halacha of Kiddushin (nuptial engagement) requires two Aidim (witnesses). When one is Mekadaish with only one aid, that Kiddushin is invalid! If this is so, how could Adam HaRishon have ever been Mekadaish Chava? He did not even have the services of one aid?"

Prior to discovering the brilliant response of the Chasam Sofer to this question, we must involve ourselves with some background data. How do we know that the act of Kiddushin requires two Aidim? The Gemarah in Sotah 60b has this to say: ".....The Torah teaches (Devarim 24:1), '......And he finds a Davar (matter) of immodesty in her� (in the wife he married).

 

 When it comes to the other matter of Mammon (extracting money from another in Bais Din), the Torah teaches (Devarim 19:6), 'By the mouth of two or three Aidim, the Davar (matter) will stand.' Just as the other matter (extracting money) requires at least two Aidim (which the Torah speaks of openly), so too does the matter here (of Kiddushin) require two Aidim (even though not openly stated in the Torah)."

This comparison, referred to as a Gezairas Shava, is based on the word Davar (matter), which appears both in Mammon and Kiddushin.

Additionally, the Torah discusses in great detail the situation of one being accused in Bais Din by another of thievery. The accused may under certain circumstances, take a Shavua (he may swear he did not steal). On the other hand, the accuser may arrive well armed in Bais Din, accompanied by Aidim to the thievery. As can be seen, things can become quite complex.

In any event, under such circumstances, the Torah (Shemos 4:8) states, "For every matter of negligence, whether for an ox or donkey, whether for a sheep or clothing, whether for any lost item, which another challenges to be his, unto the Bais Din will come the matter of both litigants....."

Now, to whom is the Torah referring when it states, "which another challenges to be his"? Seemingly, this must refer to at least one of the Aidim who is challenging the accused of illegally possessing an item of the true owner. Yet, as we will see from the following Gemarah in Bava Metzia (5a), this is not so. For in fact, when the Torah states, "which another challenges to be his," it refers not to any Aidim, but rather to the accused himself, who challenges that while he is guilty of thievery, he stole only part of what he was accused- not the entire amount of the accusation. The Gemarah in Bava Metzia 5a has this to say:

Come and hear how the father of Rabbi Apturiki once refuted the first Halacha of Rabbi Chiya (who said that confession by the accused is stronger than the testimony of witnesses against him- Rashi).

One accuses another in Bais Din, of illegally having a Manah (100 Zuz) of his in hand. The other replies that he has no such thing! However, two Aidim against the accused, testify that the accused does indeed have 50 Zuz, which in fact, belong to the accuser (the two Aidim have freed the accused of 50 Zuz). Now, one might think that the accused takes a Shavua that he did not steal the rest (more than the 50 Zuz the Aidim testified against him- and, after paying only the 50 Zuz to which he admitted, he is free to go). Rather, the Torah teaches. '.... whether for any lost item- which another challenges to be his....' Only when the accused admits (partially) by his own mouth, may you obligate him (a Shavua and only payment of what he admitted). But, upon the testimony of Aidim (alone, without admittance of the accused), you may not obligate him (a Shavua and partial payment).

So ends this discussion in the Gemarah. This concept of admittance by an accused is referred to as 'Hodoas Ba'al Din (admittance of a litigant).'

And so, we return to the response of the eight year old Chasam Sofer to the question of how Adam HaRishon was able to be Mekadaish Chava, without even one aid. Here is how the young Chasam Sofer replied.

"The entire reason for requiring two Aidim by Kiddushin, is that it is learned from Mammon (from the words 'Davar'). But, if we look at the Gemarah in Kiddushin 65b, we see the following dialogue.

Rav Ashi once said to Rav Kahana, "What is your opinion? The word Davar from Mammon is learned (to apply as well to the two Aidim required by Kiddushin). If there is a concept of Hodoas Ba'al Din (admittance of the accused) is as 100 Aidim there (by Mammon), should that concept of Hodoas Ba'al Din not also apply here (by Kiddushin- whereby Bais Din would believe a man when he admits he is married to a particular woman- even though there are no Aidim)?"

Rav Kahana said back to Rav Ashi, "There (by Mammon), he is not obligating anyone else (but himself with his admittance). Here (by Kiddushin) he obligates others (with his admittance- certain relatives of the alleged wife could never marry him, and certain relatives of him could never marry the alleged wife- Rashi)."

"It is because of this Gemarah," answered the young Chasam Sofer, "that Hodoas Ba'al Din is meaningless in typical cases of Kiddushin. However, when it comes to the Kiddushin of Adam HaRishon and Chava- because they were the only human inhabitants of the earth- Hodoas Ba'al Din would have certainly applied- simply, because this Hodoas Ba'al Din could not have inconvenienced anyone else. Hence, even though Adam HaRishon and Chava had no Aidim- their Kiddushin was based upon a very legitimate Hodoas Ba'al Din."

While this very poignant answer of the young Chasam Sofer is technically masterful and brilliant, we must also always be mindful of how important it is for us all never to needlessly inconvenience another. Even though all of our actions inevitably do affect others, we must always be heedful never to do those things which will cause inconvenience or trouble to anyone else. And, with this Zechus (merit), may we all witness the Geulah Shelaimah (the Complete Redemption) speedily in our days.

To receive a free e-mail subscription to NCYI�s weekly Torah Bulletin, send an email to: YI_Torah@lb.bcentral.com